tv [untitled] November 13, 2011 3:00am-3:30am PST
concern. it is really maximizing cheek to jowl buildings and pushing the deck all the way to the edge of the property line which i think is oppressive and not what i would like to see. i like us to have roof decks which operate within the area of the rules in a manner they don't try to alter basically and even in the backs and the appearance of the buildings because most san francisco buildings given the small outside operate from the front and from the back. and as far as light, which is another part of the living area. that is a nature of the buildings. and if we have free-standing buildings, i would not be as much concern about it, bah because we are standing right next to each other, it is a big concern and it is not as much addressing your design but is a concern that you hear me speak about a lot on this commission. because i am really concerned about it. >> okay. there is still over 5 feet between the building and the next parallel wall. so it wouldn't be flush, just to make sure i am clear.
and i know that we do have two lightwells in our own home and every window on the left side of the house faces this building and the building wall is significantly higher. we still do have substantial amount of light and i am not sure if you have copies of the discretionary review of our lightwells but plants that are thriving in there and is definitely a warm area -- commissioner moore: thank you. >> commissioner moore, i want to verify you are making reference that you are not including the 6 foot portion that includes the spiral stairwell. commissioner moore: no, i did not. >> just the portion of the deck only. commissioner moore: that is correct. >> pulling in it three feet from the right-hand side if we are looking at the plan. >> just that -- >> i believe that is the west elevation. >> you don't have to do it on the other side? >> basically where living space and by necessity has to look up and to see that as a mazive
addition to a building. and just a pure idea of looking up. >> about 3 feet by 14 or even 13. >> i want to make sure because we have gotten into this before, it is not the side of the stairway. it is the other side, but not the full length is what i hear you saying. commissioner moore: you can't. you have to go around the fire flue. >> and just that side that is abutting the rear yards to the houses. and that is 3 feet. by about 14. so allow them to circulate around the chimney. so it would be about 40 square feet you are losing. >> i am confused about which 40 square feet. you are talking about the side
with the two window spaces? >> we are talking about the side that is away from the spiral staircase. >> that is the opposite side of the building where the d.r. requester is complaining about. >> isn't his building abutting yours? >> he is on the other side. >> it is on the opposite side. the d.r. fileer is on the opposite side of where we are suggesting to move it in. commissioner moore: i don't think we can resolve this year. i would like to state it is a concern because if you live that way, it is absolutely horrible. and as a commission working with
the department should develop more sensitized guidelines by which we encourage roof decks because it is a provision and expansion of usable open space. however, it has to be within measure of how a property operates in the block and the typical limit ed, the limited frontage and lot size we have in san francisco. and that is basically it. given what was just pointed out. who is speaking? >> i understand the commissioner's concern and i will communicate this to the residential design team. commissioner moore: thank you. appreciate that. secretary avery: commissioners, the maker of the motion, there was an amendment. commissioner moore: and the calling of the -- secretary avery: and there is no amendment. the maker of the motion is not accepting an amendment.
thank you. okay. commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: and i appreciate what commissioner moore is talking about, but i think at this point with this particular project, we should go forward with the understanding that the staff will look at it, but trying to put that in there is looking at 14 and a chimney enclosure and the area between the chimney enclosure and the end of the cutout would have been only about 2'11", which again, getting a little narrow if you are moving things around there and putting a table or something in and so i just think that this is something the staff will have to work on. my motion is to not take d.r. and approve but certainly consider as this goes through the approval process and certainly look at it a little bit but it is fine the way it is designed. commissioner miguel: commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: sorry.
commissioner miguel: commissioner borden. commissioner borden: i think that what was just discussed about taking this back to the residential design team is the best thing that we can do. and because this is a common situation, this falls in the not exceptional extraordinary category but to the category that maybe our guidelines need to be exmrord and how to fix that. and i don't think applying it ad hoc to some people and not all people is not a fair process and should be applied with the process as it is and in the future look at how we modify it, but for today i think this is what -- these are the guidelines by which people were operating under and it is not exceptional or extraordinary because it is very much a common place problem. commissioner miguel: commissioner moore? commissioner moore: and i am going to let this project go by and the d.r. requester is not here to participate in the dialogue and that is too bad. but adding 460 square foot deck on top of a residence is kind of -- doesn't quite ring true to me. and i find it not as kind of in
tune with what we're trying to do here, but this is not going to affect how i vote on this, but i will be happy to work with the residential team to really talk about what it means and invite you all to my house to see what it can really mean. >> we'll take you up on that. commissioner moore: my pleasure. >> a christmas party. secretary avery: thank you. okay then. and commissioners, the motion on the floor is to not take d.r. and to approve the project as currently propoedz. on that motion, commissioner antonini. >> aye. >> commissioner borden. >> aye. >> commissioner fong. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner miguel. >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya. >> aye. secretary avery: thank you, commissioners. that motion passed unanimously. commissioners, you are now on
item 15a and b. case 2011.0063d and case 2010.0868v, 135 el camino del mar. >> jonas ionin and before you is a case continued from a may 19 hearing. that involved a subject property that was the cause of a sink hole in 1995 and the building permission to repair was in 1998 and the additions were constructed beyond that process and at the may 19 hearing you conducted a public hearing and at that time directed the project sponsor to work with the d.r. applicant to get to a point that was acceptable for both
party. if not that you stipulated that you would require or take d.r. and require that the project be reverted back to the 1998 condition. you have submittals from the d.r. requester and you have not received anything from the project sponsor, nor have i. the previous representation of the project sponsor is no longer representing and there was some transitional period with the architect in another expediter and they have a new person representing them. i have a draft discretionary review action memo that is usually generated after you take action but in light of the circumstances i took a crack at your review and guide you in the decision you may make today.
the option that you have today are obviously to take d.r. and approve the project as it was originally proposed and modify bid toby morris architect and or you could take d.r. and approve with modifications or you could take d.r. and not approve the building permit application. my recommendation today given the understanding of what the commission directed everyone on may 19 would be to take d.r. and approve with modifications including reverting back to what it would be in the 1998 permit but that is not entirely accurate with the conditions on the site. there were property line issues that were incorrect in the 1998 permit and there was never a variance that was issued or grant
grant granted for encroachment above the garage and keeping those two things mindful, that would be the recommendation today and obviously if you hear from the sponsor and d.r. applicant, it would be whatever your pleasure is. i am available for any questions. commissioner miguel: thank you. >> d.r.. >> in light of the fact that we haven't heard from the project sponsor, i would like them to go first and then we will speak. >> i don't know if you can go first. >> we don't know what he's going to say. how do i address what they are going to say? >> that means you don't have a comment. and you want them to go. >> i want them to go first and then i will speak. you want me to go first? >> that is the order. >> okay. this is a very unusual case and a very unusual proceeding. sue hester for the next door neighbor. and what i am going to put out
here for the staff to give to you is photographs of the front of the building. and i will talk about them on the overhead. but here are the photos for you to pass around. there was no discussions for quite a while and we have been through a cycle and you have my brief. and my brief is it's very confusing dealing with this situation and no real substantive discussions or negotiations because they really don't want to talk and feel this is an intrusion on them to have anyone say anything about what can happen at their house. what we are asking for is in
light of the plans from the most recent architect and he drew what you wanted them to draw and several thingses were incorrect and when the building permit plans were pulled by joe butler who is the client's architect, he found found errors and some affect mr. greavey particularly because they are the roofline right next to the front door. what we are asking you to do is to do a motion of intent to revert to the 1998 plans but have a final acts with the city attorney's involvement that will help describe what the measures are. there is an abatement of action that is now final because the deadline that was imposed by the abatement appeals board was not
met. it took me a while and took the city attorney a while to find out what the status of the case is. there is an active abatement and possible pend iing litigation a what you were originally asked to do is allow things to be approved and the modification. what we want is two big things. the main thing from the 1998 plans is important to him is the front of the building to be restored as the one story office
and one publ office above that that is really important and the second thing is to straighten out the rooflines which has been modified as well. you don't have the plans do it and i talked to kate stays cy which is the motion of intent and tell what you want to do and the last discussion was revert to the 1998 plans and which we have no problem with and we want the 1998 plans to be the real 1998 plans, not the 1998 plans shown in the d.r. and were incorrect. so i will leave it to my client and joe butler to speak and let -- and we have no idea what we are about to hear and the plans, i will just show them since they are available. this is the overgrown tree in
the front yard and this the way the front yard is out of control. and it is going on to the sidewalk and there are all kinds of sanitation problems and there's all kinds of next door neighbor issues because this place is so overgrown. and we want a resolution. we do nant want this to keep going on. thank you. commissioner miguel: thank you. speakers in support of the d.r.
>> vice president miguel, members of the commission, i am joseph butler for rodney gre vshg ey and we have looked at plans that have become known as the 1998 plans and i would like to draw your attention to two items. the drawing on the overhead, the east and north elevations of the building shows the condition at the front of the house with a one-story garage and one-story office above it and the roof of that extension off the front of the house wrapped around the're side of the house towards the presidio and provided a base for the bay window that is the focus and that is the building to the
moment for the house as it faces the presidio and that element was rebuilt after the collapse as a three-story piece rather than two. we would like to see that restored as a two-story piece and i want to call your attention to the rear and it was a copper shed roof according to the note. and this is a profile from the 1998 plans at the rear. so we would like the roof that is presently there be lowered to be many in keeping with what was there in 1998. i would be happy to answer any other questions about the plan and there were issues around the foot present at the rear and it is really the roofline that would have the most impact. >> thank you very much. >> there are adiggal speakers -- are there additional speakers in
favor of the d.r.? >> good afternoon, commissioners. d.r. questioner, rodney greavey. you have heard from my representatives and this is now 3 1/2 neighborhood since they identified the most recent legal addition and we have had to live with this structure the way it's been in the photographs. and especially to the may 19 meeting and being respectful to your directive, i actually engage mid own architect so we could come to a resolution here and were able to get a better than 15-minute meeting with the yee's and their representative and have gotten no surprise from that side. and that is where we are today and didn't want to be in front of the commission today. commissioner miguel: thank you very much. project sponsor. >> gafrp, commissioners.
my name is john carey, an southeastern in san francisco and i represent the sink hole concluded in late 1997 and the city agreed to restore the retaining wall that ran parallel to the house that went into the sink home and disappeared. and fixing the retaining wall or how that would leave the property and other than the city represented that the property would be in the same condition other than the damage to the house and the lot would be a usable lot. and in reality, they informed them that 1200 square feet would not be restored to them.
when the initially occurred they were given an emergency permit to stabilize the lot and as soon as the city's work on the restoration of the retaining wall they were given the permit but the settlement of the case. there is no reference to the permit or the scope of the permit or what worked with or what would or would not be done. and the concrete representations that have popped up in recent letters to the commission. i have sent a letter to introduce myself and describing what my involvement historically has been. i have not gone through the file to find out how we got to this point in time, but the problem
with proceedings like this is anybody can say anything and it is never under oath and is a he said-she said situation and the commissioners are put in a difficult position. in this instance the unions -- the yees have lost something valuable and the original reaction was to bulldoze the how into the hole to it could follow the other house out into the ocean and were able to stop you from doing that and convince them that the property could be stabilized so they could recover their home. they received compensation because it turned out the sink hole was caused by the actions of the city but no congressmen sayings for the miss -- no compensation for the missing 1200 square feet. mr. yee wouldn't attempt to do the remodel himself and hired licensed engineers and others to represent them throughout the process. he went down to the city to get
a modification for the original permit that was issued and was told that he didn't need an additional permit and the permit he had was sufficient to cover the scope of the adiggal work. and all this was dialogue between experts that he hired and the city officials saying this is fine and when the work was completed five year later, mr. gr earthquake -- mr. greavey purchased the house and it is not like mr. yee was sneaking around in the middle of the night constructing the improvements. so there is the large category of people and some that worked for the city and some that worked for him that knew exactly what was going on and what the history has been and how tragic it was that they almost lost their house completely. and now somebody says, well, in the process of redoing this complicated and severely damaged
building, there were steps that should have been followed that weren't followed and that was the information that the city was aware of and my client is told to apply retroactive so those can be filed. and there is one neighbor yo doesn't like the way the bushes are trimmed and the tree is trimmed and wants to reduce the scope of the building to something considerably smaller than what the when he bought his house. that is going to the neighbor and saying i don't like the bay window. i want you to take that off there. well, it's been there 30 year. i don't care. i don't like it. it is not the exact same case as somebody who had a house and lived there prior to the sink hole with some interest in keeping it in the same condition. and as far as the negotiations to come to a resolution between the parties, mr. yee and his wife hired professionalses and
they expected them to dialogue with the progressals. commissioner miguel: thank you. speakers in favor of the project sponsor. d.r. requester, you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> sue hester and i want to remind the commission that the project went through extensive hearings and they have a legal proceedings and legal council and they made findings that the work was done illegally and made an investigation about how the plan were altered because the site inspectors looked at plans that were altered from what the permit had been done and the fact he bought his house five years ago is irrelevant. there were multiple neighbors
complaining about the conditions and renovations and took them a long time to sort the mess out because of the illegal construction not done pursuant to an approved permit and was done pursuant to forged drawings. we are asking you to go back to the 1998 permit that was the legal permit, the city's permit, and we are asking you to do it as a motion of intent. this is a really messy, complicated case. a and i think the city attorney's office should advise you and you should have their advice on their intention and how to explain the intention and i do not want the commission to do something that let this is case go on forever and ever. this is an enormous burden on the neighbor. what we are asking you to do is restore the building to that which the neighbors saw on the street.
and the city has a stake in it as well because currently the building looks like, pardon me, crap. thank you very much. commissioner miguel: project sponsor, two minutes. >> i am unaware of a finding that any plans were forged so i don't know what counsel is talking about. and i don't see any other neighbor here and there are no other requester and no other complaints to the city about this issue. and this is a complicated situation and the city was well aware of how it was proceeding and this was an application to adjust the existing improvements now to make them more aesthetically pleasing to the neighbors and reject it out of hand with a series of demands. commissioner miguel: thank you. the public portion of the hearing is closed.
the city attorney have any comment on the motion of intent or whatever is before us at the moment? >> an i think the main concern is that you clearly articulate the reasons for taking whatever action you take today as you usually done when you take d.r. or reject or approve a project with conclusions i understand the commission did speak about the project at that point. and i would just urge the commission today to clearly articulate the reason for taking the actions and whatever action it takes today if the commission feels, of course, it that needs
more support from staff to have have the motion of intent and you actually have in front of you a d.r. report and a draft d.r. report that staff prepared for your review so i think it is in the commission's hands to act today by motion or take a motion of intent. commissioner miguel: thank you. commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: mr. ionin and maybe i can get clarification with some comment. i guess what the action. us suggested is to legalize the building that was done without permits but with the exception of those portions of the building that may intrude over the property line. there are some, i would assume, that are presently there? >> actually, commissioners, that was the original proposal on may 19. after hearing your comments on may 19, the recommendation today is to take modify indicating and to revert the building back to th